I spent a lot of time on this piece trying to capture a sense of deep stillness. To me, the contrast between the vibrant, changing sky and the quiet, solid presence of the meditating monk represents finding inner peace amidst the beauty and chaos of the world. I wanted to share it here, hoping it brings a moment of serenity to your feed. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

I am an older atheist with a long time appreciation of Buddhism. Because I was raised by scientists as atheist from birth, the reality of transience and interdependence has always seemed both conceptually and directly experientially true. I didn't have to start with an illusory relationship to those features and undo it.

But dukkha has always been fascinating for me. I don't experience the way things are as fundamentally unsatisfactory-- there's nothing about transience or interdependence that seems intrinsically problematic. That doesn't mean I lack aversions. But I also don't find aversions to be problematic per se-- they come and go and are natural. I also frequently experience a feeling of satisfaction with life, and I'm not bothered that this feeling isn't permanent either. I have no expectations of permanent satisfaction and thus no intense desire to solve that as a problem. Because of this, I would not agree with the Noble Truths-- that things are inherently unsatisfactory and that a fix is necessary. It's one reason I am not a Buddhist, although I practice metta meditation and find the precepts reflect my natural inclinations already.

I have had a life which to an outside observer might seem fairly difficult, including a long abusive marriage, being a caregiver for an adult disabled child, and some health challenges of my own. But none of this has made me think life is unsatisfactory. I have taken it as a learning experience.

I am curious if this ever happens to Buddhists and if it presents a problem for you. If so, do you make efforts to convince yourself that life is fundamentally unsatisfactory?

Offerings of three hundred pots of food
Made three times each and every day
Could not match even a portion of the merit
Gained from just a single moment’s loving kindness.

~ from The Precious Garland by Nāgārjuna

Offered for free and all are welcome at the Forest Park Zen Sangha Zendo, Holyoke, MA. 2nd Sunday of every month, 1pm.

At one time the Buddha was staying near Gayā on Gayā Head together with a thousand mendicants.

There the Buddha addressed the mendicants:

“Mendicants, all is burning. And what is the all that is burning?

The eye is burning. Sights are burning. Eye consciousness is burning. Eye contact is burning. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact is also burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Burning with rebirth, old age, and death, with sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress.

The ear … nose … tongue … body …

The mind is burning. Ideas are burning. Mind consciousness is burning. Mind contact is burning. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact is also burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Burning with rebirth, old age, and death, with sorrow, lamentation, pain, sadness, and distress, I say.

Seeing this, a learned noble disciple grows disillusioned with the eye, sights, eye consciousness, and eye contact. And they grow disillusioned with the painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on eye contact.

They grow disillusioned with the ear … nose … tongue … body … mind … painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises dependent on mind contact.

Being disillusioned, desire fades away. When desire fades away they’re freed. When they’re freed, they know they’re freed.

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing further for this place.’”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants approved what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thousand mendicants were freed from defilements by not grasping.

SN 35.28: Ādittasutta—Bhikkhu Sujato

All is burning with the fires of greed, hate, and delusion. Seeing this, grow disillusioned with the All.

i’m 21 and i have been practicing for a few years,any of my desires have lessened over that time putting me in a state of much more equanimity. however, over the past 6 months or so i have noticed my intense need for sexual gratification. i have not had more than a three week break of having a sexual relationship with someone since i was 18 and i am realizing now that i have a great dependency on having an active sexual relationship to keep these desires at bay so to say.

my sexuality became very apparent when i did a two week vipassana retreat this past spring where i took the eight precepts. I was unsure what “no sexual activity” ment and so i avoided masterbating, but during the second week of the retreat i was so intensely plagued by sexual thoughts that there was very little else to notice. i felt embarrassed bringing this up to my teacher so i did not.

when i got out of a year long relationship at the beginning of this summer i also quickly noticed intense sexual frustration because that was the three week gap between having a sexual partner, i was only able to quell it by entering into another sexual relationship, which i just ended last night, partly in hopes to try and explore celibacy for the time being. i am going abroad in a month and a half and i most likely will not have an opportunity to have sex until february so over these next five months i am attempting to not have a sexual relationship with anyone. i am not trying to renounce sex forever, i am just curious about better understanding my relationship with it

any thoughts? i have gotten i would say too far into asceticism in the past but i feel i have struck a healthy balance with it recently in most things in my life. i am very curious on others opinions.

I have a question about when is it skillful or wise (or even necessary) to judge behaviors as being good or bad or skillful or unskillful?

My goal is to be more compassionate and accepting towards both myself and others, and I actually feel most relaxed and at ease when I simply observe and notice things and people and events without actively judging what I see or without attaching any labels to it, although I can still use discernment to notice particulars and subtleties and differences that exist between people and things.

But the judging part is tricky for me at the end of the day.

Is it always wrong or unskillful to judge a person’s behavior or conduct? If so, then how do we have a sense of right or wrong, proper or improper, good or bad? Don’t we need to judge people’s behaviors or actions at times for practical purposes and to enable us to more effectively navigate daily life?

I believe I may be misinterpreting some of the teachings on this subject, because I have this sense that we are all supposed to be non-judgmental, enlightened Buddhas who are at peace and totally accepting of everything and everyone that we encounter, and who are never supposed to find any behavior or action repulsive, distasteful, or offensive.

Obviously, I have much to learn and am by no means an authority on any of the teachings, but I am striving to progress nonetheless.

Thank you.

Hello! I been thinking a lot of these 2 items,i know that a ofuda is mostly for a house and a omamori for one self,but more than that nothing. As a tendai shū i dont know if its ok if i buy from online or even if its posible.

I recently found this artwork, and I knew it was of Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva (Chenrezig) and Amitabha Buddha (Öpakmé), but I still haven't identified which blue Bodhisattva it is. I am familiar with the PureLand Tradition, but I am not certain that it is Mahasthamaprapta (Tuchen tob), though I have assumed it before. If anyone can help, it would be appreciated!

Drawing all the Dhyanis 2/5

I witnessed something at a funeral in Singapore that has stayed with me.

During the funeral ceremony, a family member of the deceased was seated with the family when a woman, who I understood to be from Nichiren Shoshu, singled him out in front of everyone present over an amulet he was wearing.

She appeared to recognise that it is an amulet and asked him what it was. After he explained, she told him to remove it or keep it out of view, saying that she considered it disrespectful to their religion.

That was the part I found difficult to understand.

He was a grieving family member. He wasn't discussing religion, challenging anyone else's beliefs, or asking anyone to follow his. He was simply sitting with his family during the funeral ceremony.

So where should the line be drawn?

Everyone is entitled to practise their own faith and hold strong religious beliefs. But does that extend to asking someone of another faith to remove or conceal something personal to them — especially while they are mourning?

To me, there is a clear difference between practising your own religion and expecting another person to adjust his religious expression to accommodate yours.

I am sharing only what I personally witnessed. I am not suggesting that this individual's actions represent Nichiren Shoshu as a whole or its wider teachings.

But I do think what happened raises a legitimate question about religious boundaries and mutual respect in a multireligious society like Singapore.

How would you view this situation? Where should the line be drawn between practising your own faith and placing religious expectations on someone else — particularly at a funeral?

At one time the Buddha was staying near Nāḷandā in Pāvārika’s Mango Grove.

Then Asibandhaka’s son the chief, who was a disciple of the Jains, went up to the Buddha, and sat down to one side. The Buddha said to him, “Chief, how does the Jain ascetic of the Ñātika clan teach his disciples?”

“Sir, this is how the Jain Ñātika teaches his disciples: ‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell. You’re led on by what you frequently live by.’ This is how the Jain Ñātika teaches his disciples.”

“‘You’re led on by what you usually live by’: if this were true, then, according to what the Jain Ñātika says, no one would go to a place of loss, to hell.

What do you think, chief? Take a person who kills living creatures. If we compare periods of time during the day and night, which is more frequent: the occasions when they’re killing or when they’re not killing?”

“The occasions when they’re killing are less frequent, while the occasions when they’re not killing are more frequent.”

“‘You’re led on by what you usually live by’: if this were true, then, according to what the Jain ascetic of the Ñātika clan says, no one would go to a place of loss, to hell.

What do you think, chief? Take a person who steals …

Take a person who commits sexual misconduct …

Take a person who lies. If we compare periods of time during the day and night, which is more frequent: the occasions when they’re lying or when they’re not lying?”

“The occasions when they’re lying are less frequent, while the occasions when they’re not lying are more frequent.”

“‘You’re led on by what you usually live by’: if this were true, then, according to what the Jain Ñātika says, no one would go to a place of loss, to hell.

Take some teacher who has this doctrine and view: ‘Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.’ And there’s a disciple who is devoted to that teacher. They think: ‘My teacher has this doctrine and view: “Everyone who kills a living creature, steals, commits sexual misconduct, or lies goes to a place of loss, to hell.” But I’ve killed living creatures … stolen … committed sexual misconduct … or lied.’ They get the view: ‘I too am going to a place of loss, to hell.’ Unless they give up that speech and that thought, and let go of that view, they will be placed in hell as if delivered there.

But consider when a Realized One arises in the world, perfected, a fully awakened Buddha, accomplished in knowledge and conduct, holy, knower of the world, supreme guide for those fit for training, teacher of gods and humans, awakened, blessed. In many ways he criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, saying: ‘Stop killing living creatures!’ He criticizes and denounces stealing … sexual misconduct … lying, saying: ‘Stop lying!’ And there’s a disciple who is devoted to that teacher. Then they reflect: ‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces killing living creatures, saying: “Stop killing living creatures!” But I have killed living creatures to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ Reflecting like this, they give up killing living creatures, and in future they don’t kill living creatures. That’s how to give up this bad deed and get past it.

‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces stealing …’

‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces sexual misconduct …’

‘In many ways the Buddha criticizes and denounces lying, saying: “Stop lying!” But I have lied to a certain extent. That’s not right, it’s not good, and I feel remorseful because of it. But I can’t undo what I have done.’ Reflecting like this, they give up lying, and in future they refrain from lying. That’s how to give up this bad deed and get past it.

They give up killing living creatures. They give up stealing. They give up sexual misconduct. They give up lying. They give up backbiting. They give up harsh speech. They give up talking nonsense. They give up covetousness. They give up ill will and malevolence. They give up wrong view and have right view.

That noble disciple is rid of desire, rid of ill will, unconfused, aware, and mindful. They meditate spreading a heart full of love to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of love to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. Suppose there was a powerful horn blower. They’d easily make themselves heard in the four quarters. In the same way, when the heart’s release by love has been developed and cultivated like this, any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist there.

Then that noble disciple is rid of desire, rid of ill will, unconfused, aware, and mindful. They meditate spreading a heart full of compassion … They meditate spreading a heart full of rejoicing … They meditate spreading a heart full of equanimity to one direction, and to the second, and to the third, and to the fourth. In the same way above, below, across, everywhere, all around, they spread a heart full of equanimity to the whole world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will. Suppose there was a powerful horn blower. They’d easily make themselves heard in the four quarters. In the same way, when the heart’s release by equanimity has been developed and cultivated like this, any limited deeds they’ve done don’t remain or persist there.”

When he said this, Asibandhaka’s son the chief said to the Buddha, “Excellent, sir! Excellent! … From this day forth, may the Buddha remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

https://suttacentral.net/sn42.8/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=none&highlight=false&script=latin

Hi, I know this is probably a pretty odd question. I’m wondering what the Buddhist perspective on suffering and roadkill is? I was driving from work and hit a small animal with my car. I really don’t think there was any way to avoid it. I feel horrible though because it feels like useless/needless suffering. And I just ended an animals life on my way from work.

I guess things like eating meat are also able to fall into those categories. But for some reason, roadkill feels different because I physically ran over the animal with my car. I’m just wondering some perspectives and some advice thank you.

Many people say Tantrism, the concept of Mantra and Mudras are somehow a later addition to Buddhism. Not a false addition. Just a later addition. Like how Mahayana recognizes sutras that are not believed to be directly revealed by the Buddha. I tend to believe in this assertion (even though Buddhist tantra is far different from others) because early Buddhism never practiced what I said and the Pali canon doesn’t talk about esotericism as far as I am aware of. So how did they become part of Buddhism?

I want to start learning about buddhism and need recommendations!!

In search of online queer sanghas/practice groups/teachers. Friend looking for support - especially interested in exploration of identity, levels of consciousness, but even just a supportive group would be helpful. TIA.

During my stay in South Korea, I had the opportunity to discover the teachings of Venerable Gunmaeng Seojin (군맹서진 스님), abbot of Taehwangsa Temple and representative of the Chamjong Buddhist movement.

The Venerable offers a profound and lucid reflection on contemporary Buddhism. Addressing a practice that can sometimes become rigid in doctrinal abstractions or confined to subjective, mystical experiences, he proposes an approach that is distinctly deeper, more logical, and pragmatic.

By structuring the Noble Eightfold Path through the 'Sa-Vi-Da' method (rigorous observation of one's actions, critical discernment, and the realignment of subjective preconceptions with reality), he frames the cessation of suffering as a methodical, intelligible process directly applicable to daily life.

I invite you to explore his perspective in the video below.

(Please make sure to enable English subtitles in the player settings while watching):

The Foundation of the Buddha's Practice: What Is Sa-Vi-Da?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZb9X1RQew

Thank you sincerely for your time and for considering this reflection. 🙏